-^ 


■^^ 


'BS2423 
.I.T32 


^,^lif7flS^ 


^ 


JUN  17   1968 

BSa423 
.I.T3S 


/ .    16 


1901.]  The  Miraculous  Birth  of  Jesus  Ct 

N\ator,  3  "It 

\ 

Abt.  IV.— the  miraculous  birth  of  JESUS 
CHRIST. 

The  Apostles'  Creed,  which  most  of  us  have  been  accus- 
tomed from  childhood  to  repeat,  and  which  all  the  Churches 
acknowledge  as  most  ancient  and  worthy  of  some  place  in 
their  public  service,  declares  that  Jesus  Christ  "  was  conceived 
by  the  Holy  Ghost "  and  "  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary."  This  con- 
fession has  its  scriptural  basis  in  Matt,  i,  20,  and  Luke  i,  35, 
and  has  commanded  a  prominent  place  in  the  faith  of  Chris- 
tendom. But  in  quite  modern  times  the  historical  character 
of  the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew  and  of  Luke  has  been 
widely  questioned,  and  the  credibility  of  the  miraculous  birth 
of  our  Lord  has  been  accordingly  denied.  "Were  such  denial 
made  by  a  class  of  ignorant  skeptics  and  scoffers,  or  by  men 
known  to  be  unfriendly  to  the  Christian  religion,  it  would  not 
be  worthy  of  serious  attention.  But  when  such  a  man  as  H.  A. 
W.  Meyer,  probably  the  most  distinguished  and  influential 
New  Testament  commentator  of  the  last  generation,  maintains 
that  these  chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke  are  legendary ;  when 
the  most  famous  leaders  of  the  school  of  Ritschl  in  Germany 
would  fain  remove  from  the  Apostles'  Creed  the  statement 
cited  above  ;  and  when  a  theologian  so  devout  and  conserva- 
tive as  the  late  Dr.  Beyschlag,  of  Halle,  finds  no  sure  ground 
for  belief  in  the  New  Testament  record  of  the  miraculous  con- 
ception, one  may  reasonably  pause  and  try  to  weigh  without 
passion  or  prejudice  the  reasons  which  have  led  so  many  able 
divines  to  question  the  validity  of  this  common  belief  of  the 
Christian  world. 

"We  need  not  wonder,  however,  that  the  personality  of  Jesus 
Christ  should  command  persistent  scrutiny,  nor  is  it  strange 
that  the  gospel  records  which  describe  the  remarkable  begin- 
ning and  end  of  his  earthly  career  should  invite  perpetual 
study  and  criticism.  Speaking  after  the  manner  of  men,  it 
must  be  acknowledged  that  the  supernatural  conception  of 
Jesus  and  his  resurrection  and  ascension  into  heaven  seem  so 
exceptionally  miraculous  as  to  invite  distrust.  But  the  mirac- 
ulous conception  has  been  more  strenuously  questioned  than 


892  Methodist  Review.  [November, 

the  resurrection  ;  for  while  all  the  New  Testament  writers 
acknowledge  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  only  the  gospels  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  record  the  supernatural  birth.  These 
facts  are  entitled  to  respectful  consideration,  but  we  may  not 
assume  that  a  question  of  this  kind  is  to  be  settled  by  the 
mere  number  of  witnesses  in  the  case,  nor  can  we  allow  any 
a  j[)rlori  assumption  of  the  impossibility  of  miracle  to  affect 
the  critical  procedure. 

It  is  easy  for  some  to  dismiss  this  question  by  the  short 
method  of  authoritative  dogmatism.  Others  have  no  patience 
with  the  details  of  critical  inquiry.  Multitudes  of  our  people 
do  not  care  to  think  at  all.  There  are  many,  however,  who  in 
a  matter  of  this  profound  and  serious  character  wish  for  a 
broad  and  candid  presentation.  They  do  not  doubt  the  sin- 
•cerity  of  the  men  who  deny  the  miraculous  conception,  but 
"would  like  to  see  a  fair  and  comprehensive  statement  of  both 
sides  of  the  controversy.  One  may  also  venture  to  submit 
that,  even  if  the  historicity  of  the  first  chapters  of  Matthew 
and  Luke  be  as  a  whole  open  to  suspicion,  the  miraculous  con- 
ception may  still  be  shown  to  be  credible.  Our  aim  in  this 
article  is  first  to  state  the  reasons  usually  alleged  for  doubting 
.  the  historical  trustworthiness  of  the  narratives  in  Matthew  and 
Luke,  and  to  offset  them  by  such  replies  and  other  considera- 
tions as  are  entitled  to  equal  attention.  In  this  part  of  the 
discussion  we  study  to  abstain  from  anything  which  might  be 
construed  as  partisan  pleading,  or  as  unwillingness  to  allow 
the  full  force  of  the  opposite  position.  We  shall  then  proceed 
to  adduce  the  strong  reasons  outside  the  records  of  the  mirac- 
ulous birth  which  go  to  confirm  the  credibility  of  those  nar- 
ratives and  to  establish  the  faith  and  tradition  of  the  Christian 
centuries. 

1.  The  silence  of  Mark,  Paul,  and  John  touching  the  mi- 
raculous birth  is  construed  to  discredit  the  narratives  of  Luke 
and  Matthew ;  for  while  the  argument  from  silence  has  little 
weight  in  general,  it  may  well  appear  strange  that  Paul,  had 
he  known  of  the  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus,  should  have  no- 
where made  allusion  to  the  remarkable  fact.  Still  more 
strange  and  difficult  to  account  for  is  the  fact  that  the  disciple 
who  took  the  mother  of  Jesus  to  his  own  home  after  the  cru- 


1901.]  The  Miraculous  Birth  of  Jesus  Christ.  893 

cifixion  (John  xix,  27)  has  not  a  word  to  say  about  the  super- 
natural conception.  To  this  it  may  be  answered  that  as  Mark's 
narrative  says  nothing  about  Jesus  before  his  baptism,  its  si- 
lence on  any  matter  previous  to  that  event  has  no  value  what- 
ever in  this  argument.  Moreover,  from  its  secret  atid  excep- 
tional character,  the  miraculous  conception  could  not  well  be 
employed  by  a  writer  like  Paul  either  among  Jews  or  Chris- 
tians for  apologetic  or  for  dogmatic  purposes.  It  may  also  be 
affirmed  that  the  silence  of  the  fourth  gospel  is  a  tacit  confir- 
mation of  the  earlier  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Luke  rather 
than  the  contrarj' ;  for  the  author  was  in  a  position  to  know 
and  correct  the  falsity  of  such  i-emai-kable  reports  of  Jesus's 
coming  in  the  flesli,  if  they  were  indeed  false. 

2.  The  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke  have  seemed 
to  many,  on  close  critical  inspection,  to  embody  a  later  strata 
of  tradition  than  the  main  portions  of  these  same  gospels.  The 
poetic  utterances  of  Mary  (Luke  i,  46-55)  and  of  Zacharias 
(i,  67-79),  and  the  language  of  Mary  and  Elisabeth  in  i,  34, 
38,  43,  possess  the  style  of  legend  and  of  later  composition. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  deemed  sufficient  to  reply  that 
the  narratives  in  these  early  chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
are  indeed  the  embellislied  compositions  of  Avriters  who  era- 
ployed  the  analogous  form  and  language  of  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  in  giving  a  vivid  word-picture  of  the  marvelous 
events  which  as  actual  facts  had  been  sacredly  cherished 
among  the  few  to  whom  they  were  known.  The  form  of  the 
narrative  and  the  prophetic  songs  may  be  regarded  as  the 
elaborated  compositions  of  a  later  time  without  disparaging 
the  main  facts  of  the  record. 

3.  Noteworthy  differences  between  the  narratives  of  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  beget  suspicion  of  the  credibility  of  both. 
In  Matthew  all  the  revelations  come  to  Joseph  in  dreams ; 
but  in  Luke  they  are  made  by  announcement  to  Mary.  In 
reading  Matt,  ii,  22,  23,  no  one  would  imagine  that  Nazareth 
had  been  the  early  home  of  Joseph  and  Mary  ;  but  Luke  tells 
us  how  the  birth  of  Jesus  occurred  somewhat  unexpectedly  at 
Bethlehem  (ii,  4^6),  and  he  speaks  of  the  return  of  his  parents 
into  Galilee,  to  their  own  city  Nazareth  (verse  39)  without  any 
apparent  knowledge  of  a  journey  to  Egypt  and  a   sojourn 


894  Methodist  Beview.  [November, 

there,  as  narrated  in  Matthew's  second  chapter.  Over  against 
these  allegations  it  may  be  quite  sufficient  to  remark  that  the 
differences  between  Matthew  and  Luke  do  not  involve  any 
real  contradiction  or  inconsistency.  In  fact,  they  supplement 
each  other,  and  may  be  put  forward  rather  as  evidences  of  the 
fullness  of  the  early  traditions,  from  which  each  evangelist 
selected  only  that  which  best  suited  the  scope  and  plan  of  his 
treatise.  In  the  course  of  events  so  remarkable,  both  Mary 
and  Joseph  needed  the  assurances  of  repeated  revelations. 

4.  The  genealogies  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  both  being  a 
tracing  of  the  line  of  Joseph,  seem  to  assume  from  first  to  last 
that  he  was  the  father  of  tlie  child  Jesus.  The  parenthetic 
"as  was  supposed,"  in  Luke  iii,  23,  looks  like  an  interpola- 
tion, and  the  words  "  his  parents,"  "  father  and  mother,"  "  thy 
father  and  I "  (Luke  ii,  27,  33,  41,  43,  48)  imply  a  real  rela- 
tionship. To  this  it  is  answered  that  there  was  a  very  real 
and  proper  relationship  which  in  common  custom  and  dis- 
course warranted  the  language  here  cited.  The  parenthetic 
clause  is  justified  and  accredited  by  the  entire  narrative  of  the 
two  preceding  chapters  of  Luke.  Surely,  an  adopted  child 
may  call  his  foster  parents  father  and  mother ;  with  equal  and 
with  even  greater  propriety  might  these  words  have  been 
used  in  the  passages  referred  to  without  determining  anything 
as  to  the  real  facts  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  and  his  relation  to 
Joseph. 

5.  His  neighbors  seem  to  know  nothing  of  Jesus'  super- 
natural birth,  but  they  speak  of  him  as  "  the  carpenter's  son," 
and  of  "his  brethren,  James,  and  Joseph,  and  Simon,  and 
Judas,  and  his  sisters."  They  ask,  "  Is  not  this  Jesus  the  son 
of  Joseph,  whose  father  and  mother  we  know  ?  "  (Matt,  xiii, 
55  ;  Mark  vi,  3  ;  Luke  iv,  22 ;  John  vi,  42.)  But  it  is  not  to 
be  thus  quietly  assumed  that  the  neighbors  must  know  a 
family  secret  as  holy  and  peculiar  as  this.  The  mother  of 
Jesus  kept  these  things  as  a  sacred  treasure  in  her  heart  (Luke 
ii,  51).  The  time  for  making  them  known  appropriately  fol- 
lowed other  evidences  of  his  heavenly  origin. 

6.  But  his  own  brethren  and  most  intimate  friends  do  not 
seem  to  have  known  of  his  supernatural  birth.  It  is  said  in 
Mark  iii,  21,  that  his  friends  thou^sht  him  beside  himself,  and 


1901.]  The  Miraculous  Birth  of  Jesus  Christ.  895 

in  John  vii,  5,  that  his  brethren  did  not  believe  on  him.  This 
objection  may  be  met  substantially  as  the  preceding.  If  these 
were  older  brethren,  as  some  suppose,  children  of  Joseph  by  a 
former  marriage,  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  to  suppose  that 
the  holy  secret  would  have  been  imparted  to  them.  None  of 
them  may  have  been  old  enough  to  remember  even  remarkable 
occurrences  connected  with  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and  they  would 
probably  have  been  left  with  friends  in  :N^azareth  when  Joseph 
and  Mary  went  to  Bethlehem.  But  if  tliey  were  younger 
brethren,  and  had  even  been  told  something  about  the  remark- 
able events  of  the  birth  of  their  mother's  firstborn  son,  the 
lapse  of  twenty  or  twenty-five  years  would  have  largely  re- 
moved the  impression  of  it  from  their  thoughts. 

7.  It  is  deemed  inexplicably  strange  that  in  setting  forth  the 
facts  and  claims  of  Jesus's  life  no  appeal,  no  reference  even,  is 
made  in  the  Acts  or  in  the  apostolical  epistles  to  the  fact  of 
the  supernatural  conception  and  virgin  birth.  To  which  it  is 
proper  to  reply  that  we  are  not  in  a  position  to  judge  what 
was  the  wise  and  expedient  use  to  make  of  such  a  fact  in  the 
apostolic  writings.  Is  it  not  rather  obvious  that  a  miracle  of 
supernatural  birtli,  though  well  known  and  accepted  among 
the  first  disciples,  was  not  a  proper  subject  for  public  procla- 
mation in  the  first  outgoings  of  the  Gospel  ?  The  claims  of 
Jesus  to  the  homage  of  mankind  M^ere  first  to  be  set  forth  on 
other  grounds. 

8.  The  tendency  of  tradition  to  glorify  the  birth  and  in- 
fancy of^  great  men  is  well  known,  and  the  ideals  of  super- 
natural intervention  associated  in  biblical  history  with  the 
birth  of  Isaac,  Samson,  Samuel,  and  John  the  Baptist  are  of 
similar  character.  This  tendency  went  on  in  the  case  of 
Jesus  to  the  production  of  all  the  marvelous  stories  which  are 
found  in  the  apocryphal  gospels ;  and  dogmatic  presupposi- 
tioiis  led  on  to  the  maintenance  of  the  perpetual  virginity  of 
Mary,  and  finally  of  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  virgin 
"mother  of  God,"  and  all  related  and  consequent  Mariolatry. 
The  tendency  here  mentioned  is  readily  conceded  ;  but  it  does 
not  follow  that  M-e  must  therefore  reject  or  deem  incredible 
all  reports  of  remarkable  signs  attending  the  birth  of  those 
whose  coming  into  the  world  was  destined  to  change  the  course 


896  Methodist  Review.  [November, 

of  human  affairs.  The  accretions  of  later  legend,  dogma,  and 
superstition  touching  the  Yirgin  Mary  do  not  necessarily  dis- 
credit the  biblical  narratives,  but  point'  back  rather  to  some 
sure  foundation  of  fact."^  The  observance  of  the  law  of  puri- 
fication, as  recorded  in  Luke  ii,  22,  is  in  notable  contrast  with 
the  tendency  of  thought  which  developed  the  dogma  of  the 
immaculate  conception  of  Mary.  How  could  a  mere  ideal 
legend  of  the  supernatural  conception  and  birth  of  a  holy 
child,  begotten  of  the  overshadowing  power  of  the  Most  High,, 
have  allied  itself  to  the  rites  of  purification  ?  Must  not  such 
a  holy  conception  and  birth  have  sanctified  the  virgin  mother 
rather  than  have  rendered  her  unclean  ?  f 

The  foregoing  reasons  for  doubting  the  historical  trust- 
worthiness of  the  narratives  of  Jesus'  supernatural  birth  are 
thus  shown  to  be  of  a  negative  character,  and  may  be  fairly 
offset  in  detail  by  such  considerations  as  we  have  presented. 
!Not  one  of  these  objections  when  taken  separately,  nor  all  of 
them  when  put  together,  would  be  suflScient  in  their  nature  to 
set  aside  a  well-attested  fact  of  history.  At  tlie  same  time  it 
may  be  fairly  claimed  that  an  unbiased  mind,  bent  upon  a  purely 
historical  investigation,  would  naturally  feel  that  the  remark- 
able nature  of  the  subject-matter,  the  large  proportion  of 
dreams  and  visions  and  poetry  embodied  in  the  chapters  in 
question,  and  the  lack  of  corresponding  testimony  in  other 
parts  of  the  Kew  Testament,  expose  the  historicity  of  the  mi- 
raculous conception  to  very  serious  suspicion.  Certain  it  is 
tliat  nowliere  in  the  New  Testament  is  this  subject  of  the 
miraculous  birth  put  forth  as  an  article  of  faith.  That  Jesus 
Christ  was  manifested  in  the  flesh  (1  Tim.  iii,  16  ;  1  John  iv, 

*  To  perceive  what  grotesquely  fictitious  stories  real  legend  may  weave  around  an 
historical  character,  the  most  superficial  reader  has  only  to  peruse  the  apocryphal 
Protevangelium  of  James,  the  Gospel  of  the  Pseudo-Matthew,  the  Gospel  of  the  Na- 
tivity of  Mary,  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  of  the  Saviour,  the  Gospel  of  Thomas,  and 
the  History  of  Joseph  the  Carpenter,  to  find  a  tone  and  range  of  thought  unworthy 
to  be  compared  with  the  sober  simplicity  and  devout  reserve  which  are  so  noticeable 
in  the  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  So,  too,  the  stories  of  the  miraculous  birth 
of  Buddha  appear  absurd  and  puerile  in  comparison  with  our  gospel  narratives  of 
the  birth  of  Jesus. 

t  There  was  certainly  nothing  in  Judaism  or  Hebrew  tradition,  which  held  mar- 
riage and  the  legitimate  begetting  of  children  in  highest  honor,  to  favor,  much  less 
to  originate,  a  fictitious  legend  about  the  birth  of  Jesus ;  and  the  supposition  that 
such  a  legend  first  started  among  Gentile  Christians,  found  favor  with  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, and  obtained  the  credence  of  such  early  writers  as  the  compilers  of  the  Gospels 
of  Matthew  and  Luke,  is  hardly  thinkable. 


1901.]  The  Miraculous  Birth  of  Jesus  Christ.  897 

2;  2  John  7)  was  maintained  as  fact  and  fundamental  doc- 
trine, but  such  a  statement  does  not  necessarily  mean  super- 
natural conception  in  the  womb  of  a  virgin.  To  maintain 
therefore  the  credibility  of  the  miraculous  birth  it  would  seem 
necessary  to  do  something  more  than  offset  the  aforementioned 
objections  of  criticism  by  pointing  out  that  the  objections  are  in 
themselves  negative  and  inconclusive.  For  while  the  critical 
reasons  for  doubt  cannot  of  themselves  disprove  the  alleged 
fact,  the  answers  to  these  reasons  are  not  of  themselves  ade- 
quate to  establish  the  fact.  The  real  question  here  at  issue  is 
not  one  of  possibility  but  of  fact,  and  in  order  to  make  out  a 
convincing  argument  tlie  documentary  testimony  must  be  sup- 
plemented by  adducing  other  kinds  of  evidence,  and  by  prov- 
ing the  person  and  work  of  Jesus  to  be  so  transcendent  as  to 
warrant  the  presumption  of  an  extraordinary  beginning  and 
end  of  his  career.  If  it  be  true  that  Jesus  Christ  stands  apart 
from  all  other  men  in  an  order  by  himself,  and  that  God  was 
in  him  as  in  no  other  man  that  has  been  or  shall  be,  it  may  be 
seen  that  his  supernatural  birth  is  but  a  natural  and  fitting 
part  of  one  supreme  manifestation  of  God  in  a  human  person- 
ality. And  if  this  transcendent  superiority  of  Jesus  is  a  de- 
monstrable fact,  it  cannot  be  fairly  objected  to  the  presenta- 
tion of  such  a  fact,  as  tending  to  confirm  the  record  of  his 
exceptional  birth,  that  we  resort  to  a  use  of  dogma  in  support 
of  a  question  of  fact ;  for  it  is  not  dogma  but  a  demonstrable 
fact  which  is  thus  put  forward  to  show  the  probability  of  other 
alleged  facts. 

1.  The  first  correlative  fact  to  be  put  forward  as  in  keeping 
with  the  supernatural  birth  is  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  as  wit- 
nessed by  those  who  testified  that  they  "  did  eat  and  drink 
with  him  after  he  rose  from  the  dead  "  (Acts  x,  41).  This 
fact  is  generally  supposed  to  be  better  attested  than  the  record 
of  the  miraculous  conception,  for  we  read  it  in  all  four  of  the 
canonical  gospels  and  in  the  epistles  of  Paul,  not  to  speak  of 
its  mention  in  other  New  Testament  writings.  Paul  was  in- 
timately acquainted  with  Peter,  having  spent  fifteen  days  with 
hira  at  one  time  in  Jerusalem  (Gal.  i,  18).  He  declares  that 
the  risen  Christ  was  seen  by  Peter,  and  James,  and  the  twelve, 

and  also  by  more  than  five  hundred  at  one  time,  the  greater 
59 


898  Methodist  Beview.  [November, 

part  of  whom  were  living  in  his  day  (1  Cor.  xv,  5-7).  His 
own  vision  of  the  living  Jesus  confirmed  all  this  testimony 
in  his  own  soul.  These  statements  of  Paul  are  reasonably 
accepted  as  resting  upon  the  testimony  of  trustworthy  eye- 
witnesses, but  substantially  the  same  facts  are  recorded  in 
the  last  chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  Even  though  these 
gospels  were  written  fifty  or  sixty  years  after  the  death  of 
Jesus,  the  writers  were  in  a  position  to  "  trace  the  course  of 
all  things  accurately  from  the  first "  (Luke  i,  3),  and  to  draw 
up  their  narratives  from  the  testimony  of  eyewitnesses.  An 
unbiased  critic  may  accordingly  aver  that  it  is  quite  arbitrary 
and  notably  inconsistent  to  accept  as  credibly  historical  the 
content  of  the  last  chapters  of  Luke  and  Matthew,  which 
record  the  supernatural  resurrection,  and  reject  the  first  chap- 
ters of  these  same  gospels,  which  record  the  supernatural  birth. 
To  be  thoroughly  consistent  one  must  needs  either  accept  or 
reject  all  these  narratives  of  the  supernatural,  for  they  are  all 
equally  marvelohs.  And  with  these  narratives  must  go  also 
the  testimony  of  Paul  and  all  the  other  New  Testament  writers 
who  aflSrm  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord. 

2.  The  ascension  of  Christ  to  the  right  hand  of  God  is  an- 
other correlative  fact  which  by  parity  of  reasoning  must  stand 
or  fall  witli  the  supernatural  birth  and  the  resurrection.  Luke 
is  the  main  witness  to  the  visibility  of  the  ascension.  He  states 
that  after  various  aj)pearances  to  his  disciples  subsequent  to 
his  resurrection,  "it  came  to  pass,  while  he  blessed  them,  he 
parted  from  them,"  and  most  ancient  authorities  add,  "he  was 
carried  up  into  heaven  "  (Luke  xxiv,  51) ;  but  the  last  clause 
is  wanting  in  a  number  of  ancient  manuscripts.  Li  Acts  i,  9, 
it  is  plainly  declared  that  "  as  they  were  looking,  he  was  taken 
up,  and  a  cloud  received  him  out  of  their  sight."  The  appen- 
dix to  Mark's  gospel  says  that  "  the  Lord  Jesus,  after  he  had 
spoken  unto  them,  was  received  up  into  heaven,  and  sat  down 
at  the  right  hand  of  God."  John  xx,  17,  represents  the  risen 
Lord  as  saying  to  Mary  Magdalene,  "  I  ascend  unto  my  Father 
and  your  Father,  and  my  God  and  your  God."  In  the  preach- 
ing of  Peter  in  Acts  ii,  32-34,  it  is  asserted  that  Jesus  ascended 
into  the  heavens,  God  having  raised  him  from  the  dead  and 
exalted  him  by  his  right  hand.    Paul  declares  in  Kom.  viii,  34, 


1901.]  The  Miraculous  BirtJi  of  Jesus  Christ.  899 

that  Christ  Jesus  was  raised  from  the  dead  and  is  at  the  right 
iiand  of  God.  It  is  written  in  Eph.  iv,  10,  that  Clirist  "  as- 
■cended  far  above  all  the  heavens,"  and  in  Ileb.  iv,  14 ;  vii,  26  ; 
viii,  1,  that  he  "has  passed  througli  the  heavens,"  "was  made 
liigher  than  tlie  heavens,"  and  "  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of 
the  throne  of  the  Majesty  in  the  heavens."  These  and  still 
■other  similar  statements  place  the  ascension  into  heaven  on  as 
•creditable  a  basis  historically  as  the  resurrection;  for  while  Luke 
alone  records  that  the  disciples  were  looking  on  when  Jesus  was 
parted  from  them  and  taken  up,  the  whole  New  Testament  is 
-a  unit  in  affirming  his  ascension  into  heaven  and  his  sitting  at 
the  right  hand  of  God.  If  now  the  miraculous  entrance  into 
^■the  world  is  denied  on  the  ground  of  its  paradoxical  and  legend- 
-ary  character,  we  see  not  how  the  miraculous  exit  of  Jesus  from 
the  world  can  be  consistently  maintained. 

3.  Nor  can  we  consistently  stop  with  the  rejection  of  the 
'sniracles  of  the  resurrection  and  the  ascension.  All  the  narra- 
tives of  miraculous  works  performed  by  Jesus,  as  recorded  in 
the  four  gospels  and  reported  in  apostolical  tradition,  must  go 
along  with  the  reports  of  the  greater  wonders  of  the  super- 
natural birth  and  the  resurrection.  "We  have  detailed  accounts 
■of  his  healing  the  sick  with  a  word  of  command,  and  in  the 
same  miraculous  manner  curing  the  lame,  and  withered,  and 
•deaf,  and  dumb,  and  paralytic,  and  lunatics,  and  demoniacs, 
giving  sight  to  the  blind,  walking  on  the  sea,  stilling  the  tem- 
pest, and  raising  the  dead  to  life.  According  to  the  earliest 
traceable  oral  tradition  and  the  oldest  written  records,  the 
public  ministry  of  our  Lord  seems  to  have  teemed  with  mira- 
'cles.  We  are  not  able  to  divorce  his  mighty  works  from  his 
tnighty  teaching.  And  it  is  utterl}'^  futile  to  reject  a  reported 
miracle  because  we  find  it  recorded  in  one  gospel  only.  We 
should  on  the  same  ground  reject  the  parables  of  the  tares, 
•the  good  Samaritan,  and  the  prodigal  son. 

4.  Furthermore,  the  totality  of  superior  qualities,  which  all 
'Christendom  has  by  a  common  consent  acknowledged  in  Jesus 
Christ,  cannot  be  altogether  ignored  in  a  fair  and  full  discus- 
sion of  the  supernatural  birth.  Is  it  then  a  fact  that  as  a  man 
^mong  men  Jesus  was  so  separate  from  sinners  as  to  be  with- 
out sin,  holy,  guileless,  tempted  like  other  men,  but  never 


900  Methodist  Review.  [November 


yielding  to  an  evil  suggestion,  possessed  of  all  moral  and  spirit- 
ual excellence,  matchless  in  the  wisdom  and  power  of  his 
teaching,  universal  in  his  sympathies,  though  for  definite  rea- 
sons confining  his  ministry  almost  entirely  to  his  own  Jewish 
people,  fulfilling  in  the  deepest  sense  the  law  and  the  propliets,. 
and  introducing  the  religion  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  on 
earth  which  from  the  first  immeasurably  transcended  all  the^ 
existing  religious  systems  of  the  world — is  all  this  true  as  a 
matter  of  fact  ?  The  great  majority  of  the  Christian  people  of 
the  world  to-day  believe  it  is  true,  and  the  fact  is  also  con- 
ceded by  not  a  few  who  do  not  confess  themselves  Christians. 
There  is  perhaps  no  question  which  is  more  commanding  and 
more  perplexing  to  philosophical  minds  of  a  religions  but 
skeptical  cast  than  that  of  the  person  of  the  historic  Christ. 
We  submit  that  this  commanding  personality,  so  profoundly 
worshipful  in  all  his  moral  perfections,  holds  conspicuous  and 
consistent  correlation  with  the  alleged  fact  of  the  supernatural 
birth. 

We  need  not  complicate  this  discussion  with  the  question  of 
the  preexistence  of  Christ,  for  tliat  subject  may  be  considered 
more  a  matter  of  doctrine  than  of  fact.*  The  foregoing  ar- 
gument is  submitted  as  fairly  leading  to  the  conclusion  that  a 
rejection  of  the  tradition  of  the  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus  car- 
ries with  it  logically  and  exegetically  a  like  rejection  of  all 
that  has  hitherto  been  regarded  as  truly  miraculous  in  the- 
person'  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ,  But  there  are  several  dis- 
tinguishable positions  which  may  be  stated  with  brief  com- 
ment, as  follows : 

1.  There  are  those  who  deny  the  supernatural  altogether. 
With  them  miracles  are  essentially  impossible  in  either  the 
natural  or  the  moral  order  of  the  world.     The  miraculous  con- 

*  A  matter  which  some  would  urge  as  of  no  little  importance  in  its  bearing  on  the- 
transcendent  personality  of  Jesus  is  the  witness  derived  from  Old  Testament  proph- 
ecy. Apart  from  all  disputed  interpretations  of  particular  passages,  there  remains 
the  commanding  fact,  to  be  duly  reckoned  with,  that  for  some  six  or  seven  hundred 
years  before  the  birth  of  Jesus  the  Messianic  hope  had  been  growing  in  the  hearts  of 
the  Israelitish  people,  and  had  reached  its  highest  degree  of  pious  expectation  at 
the  time  our  Lord  appeared.  But  as  a  Messianic  hope  it  has  no  necessary  connec- 
tion with  the  question  of  the  supernatural  birth  of  the  Messiah.  Only  that  interpreta- 
tion of  Isa.  vii,  14,  and  Matt,  i,  22,23,  which  is  now  generally  discarded  as  exegetically 
unsound  can  construct  a  relevant  argument  for  the  miraculous  conception  on  this 
ground. 


1901.]  The  Miraculous  Birth  of  Jesus  Christ.  901 

ception  can  of  course  fiiid  no  acceptance  with  this  class  of 
thinkers,  and  they  are  thoroughly  consistent  in  rejecting  the 
reports  and  traditions  of  all  other  alleged  miracles.  But 
^vlien  anyone  of  this  class  takes  in  hand  to  explain  the  com- 
manding mystery  of  the  person  of  Christ,  the  result  is  of  a 
anost  unsatisfactory  character.  The  intangible  residuum  which 
is  left  after  eliminating  from  the  Jesus  of  history  all  that  savors 
•of  the  supernatural  seems  so  utterly  inadequate  to  account  for 
his  personal  influence  over  the  men  of  his  time  and  for  the 
facts  which  have  demonstrably  followed  as  direct  results  of  his 
:appearance  in  the  world,  that  few  if  any  have  been  thoroughly 
satisfied  with  the  various  naturalistic  hypotheses  proposed  to 
■explain  the  earliest  records  of  Christianity. 

2.  There  are  others  who  are  persuaded  that  Jesus  nmst  have 
performed  many  marvelous  works,  for  they  affirm  that  nothing 
less  than  this  admission  can  treat  the  New  Testament  records 
with  rational  fairness.  Critics  of  this  class  pursue  an  eclectic 
•course,  and  sometimes  presume  to  say  what  particular  miracles 
may,  and  what  may  not,  have  been  actually  wrought  by  Jesus. 
IMost  of  the  cases  of  remarkable  healing  are  accepted  as  credi- 
ble ;  the  casting  out  of  demons  is  regarded  as  a  tactful  accom- 
modation to  the  superstition  of  the  times,  and  along  with  it  a 
truly  skillful  treatment  of  certain  cases  of  disordered  mental 
action,  resulting  in  real  "mind  cure."  The  deaf,  the  dumb, 
.and  the  blind  may  also  have  been  cured  by  the  superior  wis- 
dom and  power  of  the  wonderful  man  who  was  at  once  teacher, 
prophet,  and  physician.  But  such  miracles  as  walking  on  the 
water  are  regarded  as  instances  of  illusion,  and  the  raising 
■of  Lazarus,  and  the  son  of  the  widow  of  Nain,  and  Jairus's 
daughter  are  rejected  as  incredible.  The  position  of  this  class 
of  thinkers,  however,  seems  less  satisfactory  than  that  of  those 
who  consistently  deny  the  reality  of  all  alleged  miracles.  These 
■eclectic  critics  leave  us  all  at  sea,  and  each  reader  of  the  records 
iDecomes  a  law  unto  himself. 

3.  But  there  are  some  who  acknowledge  the  truly  supernat- 
ural in  Jesus,  and  admit  the  great  miracles  attributed  to  him  in 
the  gospels,  including  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  but  deny 
the  credibility  of  the  miraculous  conception.  It  is  no  doubt  the 
right  of  the  critical  mind  to  discriminate  in  questions  of  this 


902  Methodist  Review.  [November?, 

magnitude.  One  may  consistently  accept  the  miraculous,  and 
yet  hesitate  to  accept  a  tradition  so  strange  and  exceptional,  &o 
paradoxical,  so  bizarre,  as  the  miraculous  conception  and  virgin, 
birth  of  even  the  most  adorable  character  known  to  human  his- 
tory. In  view  of  all  the  considerations  noticed  in  the  present, 
article,  the  Churches  do  well  to  refrain  from  erecting  this  one 
questioned  fact  into  a  distinctive  and  essential  article  of  faith.. 
But  we  may  well  question  the  consistency  of  that  position, 
which  freely  accepts  all  else  that  is  miraculous  in  the  life  and 
work  of  Christ  and  yet  stumbles  over  tire  miraculous  b^eginning 
of  his  incarnation. 

4.  There  remains  what  seems  to  us  the  only  self-consistent 
position  in  a  rational  explanation  of  all  the  facts  which  enter 
into  this  discussion,  namely,  that  the  holy  child  Jesus  was  con- 
ceived by  the  Holy  Spirit,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  i& 
divinely  entitled  to  be  called  "the  only  begotten  Son  of  God."^ 
He  was  according  to  Paul  the  second  and  last  Adam,  the  man 
from  heaven,  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  firstborn  of 
all  creation,  the  beginning  {dpxri\  the  firstborn  from  the  dead, 
the  Alpha  and  the  Omega  of  John's  "  Revelation  of  Jesus- 
Christ."  If  we  believe  that  life  in  the  cosmos  originated,  not 
in  nonliving  matter,  but  in  a  principle  of  life  imparted  imme- 
diately from  the  living  God,  so  also  we  believe  the  human  life 
of  the  immaculate  Son  of  God  was  supernaturally  begotten  of 
the  same  Source  of  all  life  and  being.  And  even  if  one  should 
concede  that  the  historicity  of  the  first  chapters  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  is  open  to  some  measure  of  reasonable  doubt,  such  a  con- 
cession would  not  necessarily  invalidate  the  fact  of  the  mirac- 
ulous birth  of  Jesus  Christ.  That  transcendent  fact  finds  a 
mighty  support  on  other  grounds.  And  we  are  compelled,  by 
the  force  of  all  the  evidence  adduced,  to  accept  this  adorable 
mystery  of  Him  who,  according  to  one  of  the  very  earliest 
confessions  of  faith. 

Was  manifested  in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the  Spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached, 
among  the  nations,  believed  on  in  the  world,  received  up  iu  glory. 


(T/^t^^^h^  Q^Q^ 


'£/ti^ 


• — f  Syrocoje,  N.  y. 


DATE  DUE 


JWliL 


